There is a Victoria Secret model that does not have a belly button, and they are always saying that it is a photoshop mistake when it isn't. She had an operation as a child and it has resulted in her not having a belly button.

I didn't know that. I'll have to stop kvetching about that one, I guess.

LOL! Oddly that might be one of those incredibly rare circumstances where she might actually want them to Photoshop a belly button INTO the picture to make her look more 'natural'!

There is a Victoria Secret model that does not have a belly button, and they are always saying that it is a photoshop mistake when it isn't. She had an operation as a child and it has resulted in her not having a belly button.

I've seen her. They usually photoshop one in. Her name is Karolina Kurkova.

I don't have a problem with photoshopping, especially of the type in the VS link.

I think it's a fine line and it depends what the goal of the photoshopping is. If it's to create a gorgeous photo, no holds barred. If it's to demonstrate what a product is capable of doing, I think there are some boundaries, or at least there should be a disclaimer (for example, *model is wearing FantasticLash over GlamFakeLashes). When extensive altering is done it bothers me, but a little smoothing and brightening and fixing odd angles makes sense when advertising is the goal.

I think sometimes photos markedly alter what a person looks like in real life, for example, Britney Spears generally looks fabulous on her album covers but pretty awful in the tabloids. Other times, I think photoshopping is pretty subtle, like in the VS link. Either way, I don't base my perception of myself as a comparison to anyone other than myself so I don't have an issue with magazines creating beautiful photos with photoshopping beautiful people.

I am getting the most hilarious ad for photoshopping services! The before picture has obviously been photoshopped to look much worse (big under eye shadows, contrast upped so all sorts of freckles show up, wrinkles, etc). The after picture, of course, has been over photoshopped so the model looks like a plastic doll with coloured contacts.

Look up Glitz Pagent Photoshops.

First link...

Soulless dolls after the photoshopping is done. So creepy...

*looks*

HOLY DINO ON A POGO STICK!That went right into the deep end of the uncanny vally. It's shopped really badly, it looks like someone glued eyes from other pictures on those photos. I think I'll submit the link to photoshop disasters.

It's not an example of awful photoshopping (which VS has often been guilty of!) but it made me incredibly sad regardless. She is GORGEOUS. If she's not good enough, what hope have the rest of us got? That said, warming the images up so it looks more summery does make sense to me...they're selling swimwear.-snip-

TBH, I'm shocked at how LITTLE has been done in those pictures, and what has been done is the exact stuff I expect, just minor fixes here and there, making the colors and clothes look better, etc. I am surprised to find that they photoshop out the straps to get the bandeau cleavage...I always assumed they used too-small tops and photoshopped out the bulges.

That was my reaction as well. They mainly fixed the horrid lighting/colors from the originals and removed some straps. But with very few exceptions didn't really alter the body of the model. I don't have problems with them removing stray hairs or fingers that could have been prevented easily by an attentive photographer.

We use Photoshop a lot at the newspaper. This is simply to tone photos for print. (They usually need to be lightened, for one thing. They print dark on newsprint.)

Tinkering with photos in any other way is NOT done. It's considered highly unethical everywhere I've worked.

Yesterday we realized someone on the design desk Photoshopped a photo to make it a little easier to do his/her job. (I'm going to leave out exactly what was done.) On the surface ... harmless. But opening a major can of worms, really.

If I had my way, it would be a firing offense. It really should be. We'll see if anyone approved it, though. Sometimes I feel like the basic newspaper ethics I was taught are becoming a thing of the past ... (Ask me my feeling on anonymous sources. )

Logged

“She was already learning that if you ignore the rules people will, half the time, quietly rewrite them so that they don't apply to you.” ― Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites

I wouldn't characterize any and all digital corrections as unethical. Many of them just replicate things that can be done in camera, with lenses and filters. However, by doing them in post processing, the photographers can work much lighter, with just a camera and a lens or two, instead of the whole bag of tricks. This gives them more mobility, allowing them to go into the action or move out of harms way.

I agree with the minor touch-ups: removing a blemish, smoothing skin tone, enhancing color/lighting, etc. being perfectly acceptable. In the VP example, they really didn't change the model. They didn't give her botox lips or make her thinner/taller. Pretty much what you see is what was shot.

It's when the enhancements turn into major changes that bothers me, such as the mascara and the 2-inch lashes or as in my OP, the Big-Wig. I think this is false advertising and unethical . . . but only when used in published print.

I was wondering if anybody was going to bring up Newspapers. elephantschild, I'm glad you chimed in. I definitely believe that newspaper photos should never be photoshopped (except for color/lighting correction) simply because if you can't believe the photo, how can you possibly believe the text to be factual?